alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
15.1













CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-162171 on Form F-3 and in the Registration Statement No. 333-158212 on Form
F-3 of our report dated May 21, 2010, relating to the financial statements of
Nordic American Tanker Shipping Limited and the effectiveness of Nordic American
Tanker Shipping Limited's internal control over financial reporting, appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Nordic American Tanker Shipping Limited
for the year ended December 31, 2009.












Deloitte
AS


Oslo,
Norway


May 21,
2010
#### PEOPLE ex rel. BECK, Respondent, v. BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF CITY OF BUFFALO, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

February 6, 1898.)

Action by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of Howard L. Beck,against the board of aldermen of the city of Buffalo.

No opinion. Motion to dismiss the appeal granted, with $10 costs, and appeal dismissed, with costs. All concur, except WARD, J., dissenting. See 42 N. Y. Supp. 545.
# C_2021072EN.01002102.xml

| 1.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — 12seasons v EUIPO — Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)

(Case T-329/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BE EDGY BERLIN - Earlier national word mark EDJI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 72/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 12seasons GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny (Roanne, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 (Case R 1522/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Société immobilière et mobilière de Montagny and 12seasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 12seasons GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 12seasons GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
# C_2021382EN.01002501.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/25

---

Order of the General Court of 12 July 2021 — Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission

(Case T-866/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Rules on the distribution of air traffic between Schiphol and Lelystad Airports - Priority for the allocation of slots to Lelystad Airport - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2021/C 382/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland), Laudamotion GmbH (Schwechat, Austria) (represented by: E. Vahida and I.G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1585 of 24 September 2019 on the establishment of traffic distribution rules pursuant to Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council for the airports Amsterdam Schiphol and Amsterdam Lelystad (OJ 2019 L 246, p. 24).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

| 3. | Ryanair DAC and Laudamotion GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Ryanair DAC and Laudamotion GmbH shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear its own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the Quarterly  Report of MediaWorx,  Inc.  (Formerly
Advanced  Technology,  Inc.) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Linda Broenniman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)      the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/  Linda Broenniman
------------------------------------------
Linda Broenniman
Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)


August 13, 2003


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2021163EN.01002501.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2021 — FI v Commission

(Case T-694/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18, 19 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Proportionality)

(2021/C 163/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FI (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and J. Steele, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to FI; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 8 March 2019 and 1 April 2019 rejecting the application for the award of a survivor’s pension to FI;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by FI; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by FI;

| 3. | Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
# C_2020371EN.01001201.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/12

---

Order of the General Court of 17 August 2020 — BF v Commission

(Case T-190/19) (1)

(Action for failure to act - State aid - Operation of water supply and sanitation facilities - Preliminary examination of alleged State aid granted by the German authorities - Second invitation to act - Commission’s position - Second subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Article 24(2) of Regulation 2015/1589 - Time limit for bringing an action - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2020/C 371/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BF (represented by: S. Gesterkamp, lawyer, and C. Koenig, Professor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt a decision closing the preliminary examination procedure regarding alleged State aid granted by the German authorities to both company A and company B.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | BF shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

BF shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
# C_2019164EN.01000701.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 7 January 2019 — Azienda ULSS No 6 Euganea v Pia Opera Croce Verde Padova

(Case C-11/19)

(2019/C 164/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Azienda ULSS No 6 Euganea

Respondent: Pia Opera Croce Verde Padova

Questions referred

| 1. | Where both parties concerned are public bodies, do recital 28 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) and Articles 10 and 12(4) thereof preclude the applicability of Article 5 of Veneto Regional Law 26/2012, in conjunction with Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 thereof, on the basis of the public-public partnership referred to in Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU and Articles 5(6) of Legislative Decree 50/2016 and 15 of Law 241/1990? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where both parties concerned are public bodies, do recital 28 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) and Articles 10 and 12(4) thereof preclude the applicability of Article 5 of Veneto Regional Law 26/2012, in conjunction with Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 thereof, on the basis of the public-public partnership referred to in Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU and Articles 5(6) of Legislative Decree 50/2016 and 15 of Law 241/1990?

| 2. | Where both parties concerned are public bodies, do recital 28 of Directive 2014/24/EU and Articles 10 and 12(4) thereof preclude the applicability of the provisions of Veneto Regional Law 26/2012, on the basis of the public-public partnership referred to in Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU and Articles 5(6) of Legislative Decree 50/2016 and 15 of Law 241/1990, in the limited sense of placing the contracting authority under an obligation to give the reasons for the decision to award the contract for the provision of ordinary patient transport services by way of tender procedure rather than by direct award of the contract? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Where both parties concerned are public bodies, do recital 28 of Directive 2014/24/EU and Articles 10 and 12(4) thereof preclude the applicability of the provisions of Veneto Regional Law 26/2012, on the basis of the public-public partnership referred to in Article 12(4) of Directive 2014/24/EU and Articles 5(6) of Legislative Decree 50/2016 and 15 of Law 241/1990, in the limited sense of placing the contracting authority under an obligation to give the reasons for the decision to award the contract for the provision of ordinary patient transport services by way of tender procedure rather than by direct award of the contract?

---

(1)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           19769
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             273
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   675
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      54930
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           15693
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             15917
<LOANS>                                         242100
<ALLOWANCE>                                       3103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  347479
<DEPOSITS>                                      274566
<SHORT-TERM>                                     11858
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2743
<LONG-TERM>                                      26593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6491
<OTHER-SE>                                       25228
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  347479
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  19168
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 3877
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   408
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 23453
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                9300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10547
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            12906
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      700
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   9422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6170
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        4450
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4450
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.55
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.34
<LOANS-NON>                                         63
<LOANS-PAST>                                       565
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   131
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2735
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      411
<RECOVERIES>                                        79
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 3103
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              3103
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rick Richard SWEET, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 07-10172.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.*

Filed Jan. 9, 2009.

*94Angela M. Martinez, USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney Evo A. Deconcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William H. Callaway, Esq., Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GOODWIN, TROTT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rick Richard Sweet appeals from 288-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), (b)(1), and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). We dismiss the appeal.

Sweet contends that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement is not enforceable. We conclude that the waiver was knowing and voluntary and dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182-84 (9th Cir.2000); *see also United States v. Bibler,*495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.2007).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 23.1




                [TABB, CONIGLIARO & MCGANN, P.C. LETTERHEAD]




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1996 and to the
incorporation by reference therein of our report dated March 1, 1996, with
respect to the financial statements and schedule of Seafla, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 1995 included in its Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
year ended December 31, 1995, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.



                                          /s/ Tabb, Conigliaro & McGann, P.C.

                                          TABB, CONIGLIARO & MCGANN, P.C.



New York, New York
April 15, 1997
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 51 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 51

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday, June 
29, 2012, through Monday, July 2, 2012, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, July 9, 2012, 
or such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority 
Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the 
time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on 
any legislative day from Friday, June 29, 2012, through Friday, July 6, 
2012, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its 
majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on 
Monday, July 9, 2012, or until time of any reassembly pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation 
with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the 
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, 
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the Senate June 29, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 51

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.
```
# Den Europæiske Unions C 87I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0871 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 087I |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 65. årgang23. februar 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0871

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 087I

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

65. årgang23. februar 2022

---

| Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Oplysninger |
| | OPLYSNINGER FRA DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONS INSTITUTIONER, ORGANER, KONTORER OG AGENTURER |
| | Europa-Kommissionen |
| 2022/C 87 I/01 | Meddelelse til importører — Import af produkter til Unionen i henhold til associeringsaftalen mellem EU og Ukraine fra de ikkeregeringskontrollerede områder Donetsk oblast og Luhansk oblast i Ukraine | 1 |

Indhold

Side

IV   Oplysninger

OPLYSNINGER FRA DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONS INSTITUTIONER, ORGANER, KONTORER OG AGENTURER

Europa-Kommissionen

2022/C 87 I/01

Meddelelse til importører — Import af produkter til Unionen i henhold til associeringsaftalen mellem EU og Ukraine fra de ikkeregeringskontrollerede områder Donetsk oblast og Luhansk oblast i Ukraine

1

---

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

IV Oplysninger

OPLYSNINGER FRA DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONS INSTITUTIONER, ORGANER, KONTORER OG AGENTURER

Europa-Kommissionen

| 23.2.2022 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CI 87/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2022

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CI 87/1

---

Meddelelse til importører

Import af produkter til Unionen i henhold til associeringsaftalen mellem EU og Ukraine fra de ikkeregeringskontrollerede områder Donetsk oblast og Luhansk oblast i Ukraine

(2022/C 87 I/01)

Europa-Kommissionen meddeler importørerne, at de nødvendige betingelser for, at Ukraines toldmyndigheder effektivt kan forvalte og kontrollere den præferencetoldbehandling, der er fastsat i associeringsaftalen mellem Den Europæiske Union og dens medlemsstater på den ene side og Ukraine på den anden side, ikke er opfyldt for varer, der er produceret i eller eksporteret fra de ikkeregeringskontrollerede områder i Donetsk oblast og Luhansk oblast i Ukraine.

Da Ukraines toldmyndigheder ikke kan anvende de relevante bestemmelser i aftalen, hvormed det garanteres, at varer fra disse områder er berettiget til præferencetoldbehandling, og kontrolleres, at de opfylder alle de nødvendige krav, jf. navnlig artikel 33 i protokol 1 til associeringsaftalen, opfyldes de fornødne betingelser ikke for, at sådanne varer kan indrømmes præferencetoldbehandling.

Aktører i Den Europæiske Union rådes derfor til ikke at anmode om præferencebehandling ved import til Unionen af varer, der er produceret i eller eksporteret fra de ikkeregeringskontrollerede områder Donetsk oblast og Luhansk oblast i Ukraine, eftersom disse varers overgang til fri omsætning giver anledning til toldskyld fra datoen for offentliggørelsen af denne meddelelse.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DEVONTE DORSETT, §

§ No. 522, 2019

Defendant Below, §

Appellant, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware

§

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§ I.D. No. 1701005259

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee. §

§

Submitted: December 2, 2020

Decided: December 17, 2020

Before VALIHURA, TRAYNOR and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Justices.

O R D E R

This 17th day of December, 2020 having considered this matter on the briefs and 

the oral arguments of the parties and the record below, and having concluded that the same 

should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in 

its Memorandum Opinion dated June 17, 2019;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the Superior Court be, 

and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Karen L. Valihura

Justice